[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 5 OK
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Mar 18 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Wed Mar 19 12:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Mar 18 21:52:59 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009270.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Mar 18 21:54:29 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009271.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Mar 18 21:56:00 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009272.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Mar 18 21:57:30 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009273.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Mar 18 21:59:00 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-March/009274.html ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Building / installing Zope on AIX 5.3
Hello, I compiled Python 2.4.4 on AIX 5.3, with cc_r compiler, installed Zope-2.9.8and Plone-2.5.1. Everything seems work well, excepted when I call Plone on the browser or click on the view tab inside one Plone site at the ZMI. When I do this, I get a Segmentation fault on the server. Can anyone help me with this issue? Are there many AIX and Zope box running Plone? I found this text in at Zope-2.9/doc/PLATFORMS/AIX.txt : from Wolfgang Roesner (reporting segfaults and a fix) The default stack size for a pthread on AIX (at least in my configuration) is 96kB. On Solaris it's 1M. As soon as I explicitly set the initial stack size to 1M the problem went away and it appears as if Zope is up and running. Unfortunately I really had to change thread_pthread.h in Python which obviously is not a nice thing to do as I now have a need for my own private version of Python. But at least I have a running version of Zope on AIX. Is this really something to try? Thank you, Marcello Bax ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Building / installing Zope on AIX 5.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcello Bax wrote: Hello, I compiled Python 2.4.4 on AIX 5.3, with cc_r compiler, installed Zope-2.9.8and Plone-2.5.1. Everything seems work well, excepted when I call Plone on the browser or click on the view tab inside one Plone site at the ZMI. When I do this, I get a Segmentation fault on the server. Can anyone help me with this issue? Are there many AIX and Zope box running Plone? I found this text in at Zope-2.9/doc/PLATFORMS/AIX.txt : from Wolfgang Roesner (reporting segfaults and a fix) The default stack size for a pthread on AIX (at least in my configuration) is 96kB. On Solaris it's 1M. As soon as I explicitly set the initial stack size to 1M the problem went away and it appears as if Zope is up and running. Unfortunately I really had to change thread_pthread.h in Python which obviously is not a nice thing to do as I now have a need for my own private version of Python. But at least I have a running version of Zope on AIX. Is this really something to try? Yes. If the 'configure' script for Python has an option to bump the stack size, that would be better, but patching the Python sources to increase the stack size is a reasonable workaround, which used to be required (IIRC) on FreeBSD, too. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH4UVu+gerLs4ltQ4RAuG2AKDNU5BhsDT4kov3aYHO4eTxoXFP5QCeOTfj 1zoDfC1WkgC+AddP/li3riI= =TPcL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Building / installing Zope on AIX 5.3
Marcello Bax wrote at 2008-3-19 09:31 -0300: ... I compiled Python 2.4.4 on AIX 5.3, with cc_r compiler, installed Zope-2.9.8and Plone-2.5.1. Everything seems work well, excepted when I call Plone on the browser or click on the view tab inside one Plone site at the ZMI. When I do this, I get a Segmentation fault on the server. Looks very much like a C runtime stack overflow. ... I found this text in at Zope-2.9/doc/PLATFORMS/AIX.txt : from Wolfgang Roesner (reporting segfaults and a fix) The default stack size for a pthread on AIX (at least in my configuration) is 96kB. On Solaris it's 1M. As soon as I explicitly set the initial stack size to 1M the problem went away and it appears as if Zope is up and running. Unfortunately I really had to change thread_pthread.h in Python which obviously is not a nice thing to do as I now have a need for my own private version of Python. But at least I have a running version of Zope on AIX. Is this really something to try? Definitely. Almost surely, you see precisely this problem (C runtime stack too small). -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: zope.sendmail Retry fixes and new state machine.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 06:09:50PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[...the usual doctest vs unittest discussion ...]
Lack of isolation is a very convincing argument to me.
For me as well. Which is why I put my doctests into a traditional
tests/test_foo.py module like this:
# ... imports etc ...
def doctest_FooClass_somemethod():
Test FooClass.somemethod
foo = FooClass(ContextStub())
When you frob the groddle, by default you get zlotniks
foo.frob(GroddleStub())
'42 zlotniks'
def doctest_FooClass_somemethod_special_case():
Test FooClass.somemethod
foo = FooClass(ContextStub())
There's a very special corner case that happens when the system runs
out of zlotniks
foo.frob(GroddleStub(zlotniks_required=1000))
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
OutOfZlotniksError: 1000 zlotniks required, but only 50 are
available
def test_suite():
return doctest.DocTestSuite(setUp=setup.placelessSetUp,
tearDown=setup.placelessTearDown,
optionflags=doctest.NORMALIZE_WHITESPACE)
I find that this style helps me write much more readable tests without
sacrificing isolation.
Instead I sacrifice pdb debuggability, that I don't value much (I find
the pdb user interface horrible and prefer debugging with print
statements).
I also sacrifice test reusability -- you can't invoke one doctest from
the middle of another one. (Footnotes don't count -- invoking a doctest
footnote more than once is just *evil*, because you never know which
invocation failed.).
I find that for me personally, the advantages of test readability
outweigh the disadvantages:
* doctests without English test explaining each block of related
assertions look naked. Unittests without comments look normal. As
a result I feel the urge to explain my doctests when I never felt
the urge to explain my unit tests. Don't know why that is, but
that's how I feel.
* The ability to nicely format data for presentation is extremely
helpful. Compare
print_table([view.column_titles] + view.getTabularData())
+--+--+--+
| Month| Widgets produced | Widgets sold |
+--+--+--+
| January | 42 | 17 |
| February | 33 | 25 |
+--+--+--+
with
self.assertEquals(view.getTabularData(),
[['January', 42, 17],
['February', 33, 25]])
Now compare the error messages when the test fails:
Failed example:
print_table([view.column_titles] + view.getTabularData())
Differences (ndiff with -expected +actual):
+--+--+--+
| Month| Widgets produced | Widgets sold |
+--+--+--+
- | January | 42 | 17 |
^
+ | January | 43 | 17 |
^
| February | 33 | 25 |
+--+--+--+
versus
AssertionError: [['January', 42, 17], ['February', 33, 25]] !=
[['January', 43, 17], ['February', 33, 25]]
I'm not saying that it's impossible to write a better table
comparison function and use that instead of assertEquals. I'm
saying that with doctests it's easier and feels more natural.
Perhaps more personal taste but I also find python unittests to be much
more readable. You don't suffer from mixing lots of test setup/teardown
being repeated through the file. As Tres mentioned this is especially
true when testing corner cases.
My solution for repeating setup/teardown:
* Put things common to all tests in the module (like placelessSetUp,
setup.setUpAnnotations, registering your custom adapters needed for
these tests) into global setUp/tearDown functions, and pass those to
the DocTestSuite constructor.
* Extract object creation into global reusable helper functions. Then tests
look like
context = createFrombulator()
view = FrombulatorEditView(context, TestRequest())
and you don't have to care in every test that your Frombulator needs
seventeen Wodgets in a nested tree of Grompets for correct
functioning. These helper functions are parametrizable, so that if
I find out that I need a very custom wodget in a particular test, I
can do
my_wodget = Wodget('foo', 'bar')
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: zope.sendmail Retry fixes and new state machine.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 09:25:59AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: I'm not sure what scaffolding you're referring to. Do you mean test set up? Or the tools for normalizing output? For test set up, I don't think there's any difference. I can sympathize with the skepticism with normalizing output. Sometimes, I think it might be better to write documented tests rather than executable documentation and use assertion of a more traditional nature, if the test is still readable, although I suspect that it will often be easier to normalize output rather than make lots of assertions about the output. My personal experience with doctest output normalizers (as used in zope.testing's unit tests) was very painful. To quote jwz: Some people, when confronted with a problem, think I know, I’ll use regular expressions. Now they have two problems Normalizing output might be the easier way when you initially write the test. But when some time later your test starts failing, they're a nightmare to debug. Marius Gedminas -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.sendmail Retry fixes and new state machine.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 08:54:11PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote: I did a five-minute skim of the checkin but hope to look a bit more tomorrow. Hopefully Marius, Benji, Albertas, or someone else who has actually done work on this package will take a look and chime in. I intend to. Actually, I feel the obligation to. Sadly, the feeling of obligation usually leads me to procrastinate and do something completely different... Marius Gedminas -- The BeOS takes the best features from the major operating systems. It's got the power and flexibility of Unix, the interface and ease of use of the MacOS, and Minesweeper from Windows. -- Tyler Riti signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] zope.sendmail grantma-retryfixes branch review
I'm starting a new thread, because the original one got hijacked by the
doctest/unittest flamefest.
I appear to have unsubscribed from zope3-checkins a while ago, which is
why I'm posting here.
Disclaimer: I'm not very good at doing code reviews. I tend to mention
every little detail that could've been improved and forget to praise
everything that's already perfect.
There are two checkins on the branch.
=
rev 84645
=
http://svn.zope.org/zope.sendmail/branches/grantma-retryfixes/?rev=84645view=rev
Matthew, Subversion thinks the two PDF files you added are plain-text
(svn:eol-style is native, and svn diff shows the actual contents of
the PDFs, which isn't very useful to human readers). I would suggest
svn propdel svn:eol-style *.pdf
svn propset svn:mime-type application/pdf *.pdf
Also, the Quue_*.pdf seems to have a typo in the file name.
At first sight those diagrams look scary and complicated. I'd look into
ways to express their content in a text file with plain-text
explanations and ASCII-art diagrams.
=
rev 84551
=
http://svn.zope.org/zope.sendmail/branches/grantma-retryfixes/?rev=84551view=rev
Index: src/zope/sendmail/configure.zcml
===
--- src/zope/sendmail/configure.zcml (revision 84550)
+++ src/zope/sendmail/configure.zcml (revision 84551)
@@ -14,11 +14,18 @@
!--
To send mail, uncomment the following directive and be sure to
-create the queue directory.
+create the queue directory.
+
+Other parameters sepcify the polling interval, and the retry
sepcify?
+interval used when a temporary failure is detected. Lock links
+can also be cleared on server start.
mail:queuedDelivery permission=zope.SendMail
queuePath=./queue
- mailer=smtp /
+ retryInterval=300
+ pollingInterval=3000
+ cleanLockLinks=False
+ mailer=smtp /
--
Please avoid literal tab characters in source files.
Index: src/zope/sendmail/zcml.py
===
--- src/zope/sendmail/zcml.py (revision 84550)
+++ src/zope/sendmail/zcml.py (revision 84551)
@@ -70,7 +70,35 @@ class IQueuedDeliveryDirective(IDelivery
description=uDefines the path for the queue directory.,
required=True)
-def queuedDelivery(_context, permission, queuePath, mailer, name=Mail):
+pollingInterval = Int(
+title=u'Polling Interval',
+description=u'Defines the polling interval for queue processing in'
+' milliseconds',
+default=3000,
+required=False)
...
-thread = QueueProcessorThread()
+thread = QueueProcessorThread(interval=pollingInterval/1000,
You're using integer division here and losing sub-second precision. If you
don't want that, write interval=pollingInterval/1000.0.
+ retry_interval=retryInterval,
+ clean_lock_links=cleanLockLinks)
thread.setMailer(mailerObject)
thread.setQueuePath(queuePath)
thread.start()
Index: src/zope/sendmail/mailer.py
===
--- src/zope/sendmail/mailer.py (revision 84550)
+++ src/zope/sendmail/mailer.py (revision 84551)
...
@@ -41,22 +49,105 @@ class SMTPMailer(object):
self.password = password
self.force_tls = force_tls
self.no_tls = no_tls
+self.logger = None
-def send(self, fromaddr, toaddrs, message):
-connection = self.smtp(self.hostname, str(self.port))
+def set_logger(self, logger):
+if not isinstance(logger, logging.Logger):
+raise DoesNotImplement('Invalid logger given')
I don't think DoesNotImplement is right here -- there are no interfaces
you're looking for. Better use the built-in TypeError.
But is the type check necessary at all? The Pythonic thing is to rely on duck
typing.
+self.logger = logger
+
+def _log(self, log_level, *args):
+if self.logger is None:
+return
+# This is not elegant, but it can be fixed later
In my experience later usually doesn't happen. Why not fix it now?
+if log_level == 'debug':
+self.logger.debug(*args)
+elif log_level =='info':
+self.logger.info(*args)
+elif log_level =='error':
+self.logger.error(*args)
+elif log_level =='warning':
+self.logger.warning(*args)
+
Just use
self.logger.log(log_level, *args)
and logging.DEBUG/logging.INFO/logging.ERROR/logging.WARNING as the
values for log_level.
+def _handle_smtp_error(self,
+ smtp_code,
+ smtp_error,
+
Re: [Zope-dev] Building / installing Zope on AIX 5.3
Thank you for the help. The unifiedInstaller from plone.org seems to have a Python package that corrects this stack size issue. After installing GNU versions of tar, make, gcc and ln on AIX-5.3, I followed, step by step, the install.sh script from unifiedInstaller bundle using bash shell. I continued progressing and correcting some small AIX environment differences. It worked very well. Many thanks to the Plone community and the unifiedinstaller! Marcello Bax Paradigma.com.br On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marcello Bax wrote at 2008-3-19 09:31 -0300: ... I compiled Python 2.4.4 on AIX 5.3, with cc_r compiler, installed Zope-2.9.8and Plone-2.5.1. Everything seems work well, excepted when I call Plone on the browser or click on the view tab inside one Plone site at the ZMI. When I do this, I get a Segmentation fault on the server. Looks very much like a C runtime stack overflow. ... I found this text in at Zope-2.9/doc/PLATFORMS/AIX.txt : from Wolfgang Roesner (reporting segfaults and a fix) The default stack size for a pthread on AIX (at least in my configuration) is 96kB. On Solaris it's 1M. As soon as I explicitly set the initial stack size to 1M the problem went away and it appears as if Zope is up and running. Unfortunately I really had to change thread_pthread.h in Python which obviously is not a nice thing to do as I now have a need for my own private version of Python. But at least I have a running version of Zope on AIX. Is this really something to try? Definitely. Almost surely, you see precisely this problem (C runtime stack too small). -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
